Category Archives: United States Supreme Court

Enforce the U.S. Supreme Court’s Judicial Ethics Code

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, United States Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , , ,

Ethics for Justice: How boosting judicial ethics helps tackle corruption amongst judiciaries

Last week, Justice Elena Kagan proposed the Supreme Court’s newly-adopted a code of conduct should have an enforcement mechanism. She proposed that the justices shouldn’t do it amongst themselves but that lower federal court judges would probably be the best choice. Kagan suggested that in the alternative the Court could appoint an outside panel of highly respected, experienced judges to review allegations of wrongdoing by the justices.

“Rules usually have enforcement mechanisms attached to them, and this one, this set of rules, does not . . . However hard it is, we could and should try to figure out some mechanism for doing this.” ~U.S. Supreme Court Justice Kagan

Her recommendation comes as accusations of financial improprieties, undisclosed relationships, and conflicts of interest have cast a shadow over the court’s integrity. These controversies have sparked intense public debate and increased calls for rigorous oversight and ethical reforms.

Public confidence in the Supreme Court has been lower over the past 16 years than it was before. Between 1973 and 2006, an average of 47% of U.S. adults were confident in the court. During this 33-year period, no fewer than four in 10 Americans expressed high confidence in the court in any survey, apart from a 39% reading in October 1991 taken during the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings.

How that arrangement would work and what penalties would be available are still open questions. And Kagan is just one voice among nine justices. Some would likely disagree, including justices at the center of recent controversies: Republican appointees Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

But just like it’s important for President Joe Biden to press court reforms even if they won’t come soon. It’s important for Kagan to inform the public of her preference for accountability, even if her ideas don’t catch on with all the other justices. One of the reforms that Biden reportedly supports is an enforceable code. Unfortunately, that’s something that likely wouldn’t pass a Republican-controlled House and that the Republican-majority court might strike down as unconstitutional, anyway.

The court’s composition raises a larger issue in need of reform — whether by term limits, expanding the number of justices or both — something that was also evident from Kagan’s public appearance Thursday. She highlighted the importance of respecting precedent, in the wake of yet another term in which the majority overturned a big one, this time Chevron deference. That decision led to Kagan’s dissent in which she wrote that “a longstanding precedent at the crux of administrative governance thus falls victim to a bald assertion of judicial authority. The majority disdains restraint, and grasps for power.”

Even for something simple, like ethics rules with consequences for violating them, it’s clear that the court will cling to power as long as it can, both in its rulings and operations.

The Supreme Court is likely to issue one of its most consequential rulings at a time when public confidence in the institution has never been lower.

Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

U.S. Supreme Court Ruling May Allow More Aggressive Homeless Encampment Removals

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Cruel & Unusual Punishment, Eighth Amendment, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Search and Seizure, Skagit County Criminal Defense, United States Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , , ,

Activists demonstrate at the Supreme Court as the justices consider a challenge to rulings that found punishing people for sleeping outside when shelter space is lacking amounts to unconstitutional cruel and unusual punishment, on Capitol Hill April 22 in Washington. (AP photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

(AP photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

In City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson, the U.S. Supreme Court’s conservative majority upheld Oregon’s ban on camping. It found laws that criminalize sleeping in public spaces do not violate the Eighth Amendment’s protections against cruel and unusual punishment.

BACKGROUND FACTS

The city of Grants Pass in southern Oregon has a population of approximately 38,000. Of that population, somewhere between 50 and 600 persons are unhoused. Whatever the exact number of unhoused persons, however, it exceeds the number of available shelter beds, requiring that at least some of them sleep on the streets or in parks. However, several provisions of the Grants Pass Municipal Code prohibit them from doing so, including an “anti-sleeping” ordinance, two “anti-camping” ordinances, a “park exclusion” ordinance, and a “park exclusion appeals” ordinance.

A district court certified a class of plaintiffs of involuntarily unhoused persons living in Grants Pass. The district court concluded that, based on the unavailability of shelter beds, the City’s enforcement of its anti-camping and anti-sleeping ordinances violated the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause. A panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed, and the Ninth Circuit denied rehearing en banc. The U.S. Supreme Court decided to hear the case.

COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS

Writing for the majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch said that the nation’s policy on homelessness shouldn’t be dictated by federal judges, rather such decisions should be left to state and local leaders.

“Homelessness is complex,” Gorsuch wrote. “Its causes are many. So may be the public policy responses required to address it.”

“At bottom, the question this case presents is whether the Eighth Amendment grants federal judges primary responsibility for assessing those causes and devising those responses. It does not,” ~U.S. Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that, for some people, sleeping outside is a “biological necessity” and it’s possible to balance issues facing local governments with constitutional principles and the humanity of homeless people.

“Instead, the majority focuses almost exclusively on the needs of local governments and leaves the most vulnerable in our society with an impossible choice: Either stay awake or be arrested.” ~Justice Sonia Sotomayor

Criminalizing homelessness can “cause a destabilizing cascade of harm,” Sotomayor added. When a person is arrested or separated from their belongings, the items that are frequently destroyed include important documents needed for accessing jobs and housing or items required for work such as uniforms and bicycles, Sotomayor wrote.

My opinion? The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision will likely result in municipalities taking more aggressive action to remove encampments. This may include searching homeless people’s property and/or discarding it. Since the ruling allows municipalities to issue more citations and arrests without violating the Eighth Amendment, the decision could lead to more legal claims over other constitutional protections, which could include the disposal of people’s property during encampment removals. Other legal claims over cities’ treatment of homeless people have focused on rights protecting against unreasonable search and seizure and guaranteeing due process, in the Fourth and 14th Amendments.

Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Domestic Violence Gun Ban

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Domestic Violence, Firearm, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, United States Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , , ,

Supreme Court upholds federal gun ban for those under domestic violence restraining orders | Fox News

In United States v. Rahimi, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its most significant gun control ruling in two years. It upheld a federal law that bars people who are the subject of domestic violence restraining orders from owning weapons.

With conservatives and liberals joining the 8-1 majority, the decision was a major win for gun safety groups and victims of domestic violence. It limited a controversial standard the high court’s conservatives had set down in 2022 that required gun prohibitions to have a connection to history to survive constitutional scrutiny.

The case centered on a 1994 law that bars people who are the subject of domestic violence restraining orders from possessing guns. A Texas man, Zackey Rahimi, was convicted for violating that law following a series of shootings.

SUPREME COURT’S PRECEDENT ON GUN CONTROL 

Two years ago, in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the Supreme Court said that to survive a challenge, gun laws must have some connection to the nation’s history and tradition.

In Bruen, Justice Thomas wrote on behalf of the Supreme Court’s majority as the court charted a new approach to the Second Amendment. The sweeping “history and tradition test” Thomas put forth in that opinion declared that modern gun-control laws are invalid unless similar restrictions existed in early American history.

Unfortunately, Justice Thomas’s opinion in Bruen sent lower federal courts dumbfounded on whether modern gun laws had some connection to the 18th Century.

RAHIMI ADDRESSES THE CONFUSING PRECEDENT CREATED BY BRUEN.

Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote Rahimi’s majority opinion, sought to minimize the Court’s disagreements with Justice Thomas, who was the lone dissenter (and wrote Bruen, remember). However, not all the justices were so restrained, with two calling Thomas’ approach “useless.”

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a conservative who has been raising concerns about the Supreme Court’s approach on history in recent cases, penned a brief concurrence criticizing how some lower courts were looking for near-identical historical gun laws when examining modern regulations.

“Imposing a test that demands overly specific analogues has serious problems. It forces 21st-century regulations to follow late-18th-century policy choices, giving us ‘a law trapped in amber.’” ~Justice Barrett

Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with Domestic Violence, a Firearm Offense or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

U.S. Supreme Court to Decide Influential Criminal Cases

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Domestic Violence, Firearm, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Obstructing, Skagit County Criminal Defense, United States Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , , ,

In Death Penalty Cases, a Texas Court Tests the Supreme Court's Patience - The New York Times

The Associated Press reports the Supreme Court is headed into its final few weeks with nearly half of the cases heard this year still undecided. Some of the criminal cases are quite influential, including ones that could reshape the law on Obstructing, Firearms Offenses and Domestic Violence cases.

Here’s a look at some of the major undecided cases:

Jan. 6, 2021 Riots

A former Pennsylvania police officer is challenging the validity of obstruction charges brought against hundreds of people who took part in the violent assault on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Former President Donald Trump faces the same charge of obstructing an official proceeding.

The legal issue is whether a law meant to discourage tampering with documents sought in investigations can be used against the Capitol rioters.

The federal charge of Obstruction of an Official Proceeding carries up to 20 years behind bars. It is among the most widely used felony charges in the Jan. 6 cases. It has been brought against extremists accused of plotting to stop the transfer of presidential power from Republican Donald Trump to Democrat Joe Biden as well as in dozens of less serious cases.

Guns & Domestic Violence

The justices are weighing whether to uphold a federal law that seeks to protect Domestic Violence victims by keeping guns away from the people alleged to have abused them.

The case, United States v. Rahimi, made its way up to the Supreme Court after the Biden administration asked the justices to review a decision earlier this year by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit that struck down a federal law that bars people under domestic violence orders from having firearms.

An appeals court struck down a law that prohibits people under domestic violence restraining orders from possessing firearms. That court found that the law violated the 2nd Amendment right to “keep and bear arms” following the Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling that expanded gun rights and changed how courts are supposed to evaluate gun restrictions.

Homelessness

The most significant Supreme Court case in decades on homelessness centers on whether people can be banned from sleeping outdoors when shelter space is lacking.

A San Francisco-based appeals court decision said that amounts to cruel and unusual punishment. Leaders from California and across the West say that the ruling makes it harder for them to regulate homeless encampments encroaching on sidewalks and other public places. Advocates say it would criminalize homelessness just as rising costs have pushed the number of people without a permanent place to live to record levels.

Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

U.S. Supreme Court Declares Unlawful a Federal Ban on “Bump Stock” Devices

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Firearm, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, United States Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , ,

FILE - Shooting instructor Frankie McRae demonstrates the grip on an AR-15 rifle fitted with a "bump stock" at his 37 PSR Gun Club in Bunnlevel, N.C., on Oct. 4, 2017. Gun accessories known as bump stocks hit the market more than a decade ago. The U.S. government initially concluded that the devices that make semi-automatic weapons fire faster didn't violate a federal ban on machine guns. That changed after a gunman with bump stock-equipped rifles killed 60 people and wounded hundreds in Las Vegas in 2017. (AP Photo/Allen G. Breed, File)

AP Photo/Allen G. Breed

In Garland v. Cargill, the U.S. Supreme Court has struck down a Trump-era regulation that effectively banned bump stocks. These aftermarket accessories make semiautomatic rifles fire more like machine guns. The devices were used in the deadliest mass shooting in American history.

A majority of the justices reasoned that the definition of machine gun in federal law does not apply to bump stocks. As a result, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives exceeded its authority to regulate them, the court ruled.

“A bump stock does not convert a semiautomatic rifle into a machinegun any more than a shooter with a lightning-fast trigger finger does.” ~U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

Semiautomatic weapons, which fire one bullet per trigger pull, are legal and don’t need to be registered with the federal government. When a bump stock is employed, it uses a semiautomatic’s natural recoil to quickly re-engage the trigger as long as the shooter maintains pressure. That enables an increased rate of fire — one that can nearly match that of a machine gun.

The court’s liberal justices signed onto a dissent penned by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, which panned the majority’s reasoning:

“This is not a hard case. All of the textual evidence points to the same interpretation. A bump-stock-equipped semiautomatic rifle is a machinegun because (1) with a single pull of the trigger, a shooter can (2) fire continuous shots without any human input beyond maintaining forward pressure.” ~U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

ARE BUMP STOCKS NOW LEGAL IN WASHINGTON STATE?

No. Garland v. Cargill narrowly applies only to the ATF’s rulemaking authority and interpretation of federal statutes. Therefore, Washington’s ban on bump stocks shall remain in effect. Also, it is still a Class A felony in WA State to possess a bump-stocked firearm in the commission of a felony. Washington State joins 16 other states and the District of Columbia in preserving their bump stock bans.

Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with a Firearm Offense or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

Supreme Court Unveils Ethics Code For Justices

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, United States Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , ,

New Clarence Thomas ethics questions about forgiveness on luxury RV loan | WUSF

Intriguing article by journalists  and  discusses how the U.S. Supreme Court recently announced its first formal code of conduct governing the ethical behavior of its nine justices. This comes as pressure over revelations of undisclosed luxury trips and hobnobbing with wealthy benefactors have plaqued the Court.

The new code drew mixed reviews, with some critics noting the apparent absence of any enforcement mechanism. It was adopted after a series of media reports detailing ethics questions surrounding some Supreme Court members, in particular conservative Justice Clarence Thomas, even as Senate Democrats pursued long-shot legislation to mandate an ethics code for the nation’s top judicial body.

The court has been buffeted for months by revelations of justices accepting undisclosed trips on private jets, luxury vacations, real estate and recreational vehicle deals, and more:

The nine-page code contains sections codifying that justices should not let outside relationships influence their official conduct or judgment. This spells out restrictions on their participation in fundraising and reiterating limits on the accepting of gifts. It also states that justices should not “to any substantial degree” use judicial resources or staff for non-official activities.

A commentary released with the code elaborating on some of its provisions said that justices who are weighing a speaking engagement should “consider whether doing so would create an appearance of impropriety in the minds of reasonable members of the public.”

Unlike other members of the federal judiciary, the Supreme Court’s life-tenured justices had long acted with no binding ethics code. That absence, the court said in a statement accompanying the code, had led some to believe that the justices “regard themselves as unrestricted by any ethics rules.”

The ethics drum beat added pressure to a court already facing declining public approval following major rulings in its past two terms powered by its 6-3 conservative majority. The court ended its recognition of a constitutional right to abortion, expanded gun rights and rejected affirmative action collegiate admissions policies often used to increase Black and Hispanic student enrollment.

My opinion? This is a small but significant step in the right direction. However, it does not specify how the rules would be enforced or by whom. The Court has also failed to acknowledge past transgressions. Our take-away? It’s good that they feel some obligation to respond to public criticism and act like they care.

Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

U.S. Supreme Court Revives Biden’s Regulation of ‘Ghost Guns’

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Federal Crimes & Prosecutions, Firearm, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, United States Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , , ,

Editorial: Ready, aim, regulate: The Supreme Court makes the right call on ghost guns, for now | Guest Column | wyomingnews.com

The Supreme Court temporarily revived the Biden administration’s regulation of “ghost guns” — kits that can be bought online and assembled into untraceable homemade firearms.

The number of ghost guns recovered by law enforcement in the US has increased at an alarming rate—rising 398% from 2016 to 2020. Nearly 24,000 ghost guns were recovered across the country during that five-year period. President Biden’s administration officials said such weapons had soared in popularity in recent years, particularly among criminals barred from buying ordinary guns.

BACKGROUND

Ghost guns are do-it-yourself, homemade guns, produced with simple building blocks available online. In May 2021, the federal government proposed a rule that would finally clarify that these parts qualify as traditional firearms, and must be sold with serial numbers and background checks. Several states – including Washington State – have also acted, including with requirements that all ghost guns must be reported to officials. The strongest laws also regulate the spread of guns that can be made with 3-D printers.

THE COURT’S ORDER

The court’s brief order gave no reasons, which is typical when the justices act on emergency applications. The order was provisional, leaving the regulation in place while a challenge moves forward in the courts.

THE VOTING SPLIT

The vote was 5 to 4, with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Amy Coney Barrett joining the court’s three liberal members — Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson — to form a majority.

Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr., Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh noted dissents. Like the justices in the majority, they did not explain their reasoning.

Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with a Firearm Offense or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

U.S. Supreme Court Addresses “True Threats”

Bellingham Defense Attorney, First Amendment, Harassment, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Stalking, True Threats, United States Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , , ,

Supreme Court: Your Facebook Threats Aren't Necessarily Real Threats

In Counterman v. Colorado, No. 22-138 (June 27, 2023)., the U.S. Supreme Court held that Facebook threats aren’t necessarily real threats. In order to constitute a “true threat,” the prosecution must prove that the defendant had some subjective understanding of the threatening nature of his or her statements.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

From 2014 to 2016, the defendant Mr. Counterman sent hundreds of Facebook messages to C. W., a local singer and musician. The two had never met, and C. W. did not respond. In fact, she tried repeatedly to block him, but each time, Counterman created a new Facebook account and resumed contacting C. W. Several of his messages envisaged violent harm befalling her.

Counterman’s messages put C. W. in fear and upended her daily existence. C. W. stopped walking alone, declined social engagements, and canceled some of her performances. C. W. eventually contacted the authorities.

The State charged Mr. Counterman under Colorado’s Stalking Statutue. This crime makes it unlawful to repeatedly make any form of communication with another person” in “a manner that would cause a reasonable person to suffer serious emotional distress and does cause that person to suffer serious emotional distress.”

Mr. Counterman moved to dismiss the charge on First Amendment grounds, arguing that his messages were not “true threats” and therefore could not form the basis of a criminal prosecution. Following Colorado law, the trial court rejected that argument under an objective standard, finding that a reasonable person would consider the messages threatening.

Counterman appealed, arguing that the First Amendment required the State to show not only that his statements were objectively threatening, but also that he was aware of their threatening character. The Colorado Court of Appeals disagreed and affirmed his conviction. The Colorado Supreme Court denied review. Instead, the U.S. Supreme Court stepped in to handle the appeal.

COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS

Justice Kagan delived the opinion of the majority court. Preliminarily, she began by saying the First Amendment permits restrictions upon the content of speech in a few limited areas. Among these historic and traditional categories of unprotected expression is true threats.

“True threats are serious expressions conveying that a speaker means to commit an act of unlawful violence,” said Justice Kagan. “The existence of a threat depends not on the mental state of the author, but on what the statement conveys to the person on the receiving end.”

Justice Kagan elaborated that the State is required to show the defendant had the mental state to make a true threat. She explained that with regard to defamation, a public figure cannot recover for the injury that someone’sstatement causes unless the speaker acted with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. The same idea arises in the law respecting obscenity and incitement to unlawful conduct.

“And that same reasoning counsels in favor of requiring a subjective element in a true-threats case. A speaker’s fear of mistaking whether a statement is a threat, fear of the legal system getting that judgment wrong, and fear of incurring legal costs all may lead a speaker to swallow words that are in fact not true threats. Insistence on a subjective element in unprotected-speech cases, no doubt, has a cost: Even as it lessens chill of protected speech, it makes prosecution of otherwise proscribable, and often dangerous, communications harder. But a subjective standard is still required for true threats, lest prosecutions chill too much protected, non-threatening expression.” ~Justice Kagain, U.S. Supreme Court.

Justice Kagan held that a Reckless Standard is the correct approach in determining the proper mens rea for these cases. A recklessness standard shows that a person “consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk that his conduct will cause harm to another.”

“Requiring purpose or knowledge would make it harder for States to counter true threats—with diminished returns for protected expression. Using a recklessness standard also fits with this Court’s defamation decisions, which adopted a recklessness rule more than a half-century ago.” ~Justice Kagain, U.S. Supreme Court.

Justice Kagan concluded by saying the State of Colorado wrongfully prosecuted Counterman in accordance with an objective standard and not a “reckless standard.” This was a violation of the First Amendment. With that, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed Mr. Counterman’s Stalking conviction.

My opinion? Justice Kagan’s “Recklessness Approach” to stalking cases is certainly creative. And it seems to be upheld by caselaw.  I agree with her reasoning that recklessness strikes the right balance. It offers enough breathing space for protected speech without sacrificing too many of the benefits of enforcing laws against true threats.

Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with Stalking, Harassment or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

DOJ Wants Review of DV Firearms Ruling

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Domestic Violence, Firearm, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, United States Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , , ,

Appeals court strikes down domestic violence gun law - Washington Times

The Justice Department has petitioned the United States Supreme Court (USSC) to overturn United States vs. Rahimi. This recent and controversial court decision from the 5th Circuit allows individuals charged with Domestic Violence (DV) crimes to possess firearms. The Justice Department (DOJ) argues that the risk of homicide rises when there’s a gun in a house that has a domestic abuser. As a result, millions of Americans will be victims of intimate-partner abuse.

“And if allowed to stand, it would thwart Congress’s considered judgment that persons who have been found to be a threat to their intimate partners or children should not be permitted to acquire or possess firearms.” ~U.S. Department of Justice

The government filed the petition on an expedited schedule to allow the Supreme Court to determine whether it will take up the case.

THE 5TH CIRCUIT FEDERAL COURT OF APPEALS’ RULING IN U.S. V. RAHIMI.

In Rahimi, Fifth Circuit ruled that the federal prohibition on gun possession for people subject to DV restraining orders (DVROs) is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. Rahimi pointed to the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen. That case provided a legal framework for gun laws supporting the tradition and history of the Constitution’s Second Amendment.

The 5th Circuit found the government failed to show that the statute’s “restriction of the Second Amendment right fits within our Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

THE DOJ’S RESPONSE TO U.S. V. RAHIMI.

The appellate court ruling caught the attention of the Justice Department early on. The government wrote in its petition that the 5th Circuit “overlooked the strong historical evidence supporting the general principle that the government may disarm dangerous individuals. The court instead analyzed each historical statute in isolation.”

In a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week, witnesses said the Supreme Court decision in Bruen has wreaked havoc on the country’s gun control laws. At the committee hearing, Ruth M. Glenn with the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence called attention to the 5th Circuit’s U.S. v. Rahimi.

“The lack of historical laws restricting firearms access by domestic abusers is not evidence that such laws are unconstitutional . . . Rather it is a reflection of the legally subordinate status and general disregard for the rights and needs of women in early America.” ~Ruth M. Glenn, National Coalition Against Domestic Violence

Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with DV, Firearms Offenses or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

U.S. Supreme Court Expands Gun Rights

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Firearm, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, United States Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , , ,

Gun Bans and Regulations: From a Second Amendment Advocate – The Wildezine

In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the U.S. Supreme Court held that Americans have a right to carry firearms in public for Self-Defense. Their ruling marks a major expansion of gun rights after a series of mass shootings. It’s also a ruling likely to lead to more people legally armed.

BACKGROUND FACTS

The state of New York passed a law requiring a person to show a special need for self-protection in order to to receive a license to carry a firearm outside their home. Robert Nash and Brandon Koch challenged the law after New York rejected their concealed-carry applications based on failure to show “proper cause.” A federal district court dismissed their claims, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed. The U.S. Supreme Court took the issue up on appeal.

LEGAL ISSUE

Does New York’s law requiring that applicants for unrestricted concealed-carry licenses demonstrate a special need for self-defense violate the Second Amendment?

COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS

Holding: New York’s proper-cause requirement for obtaining an unrestricted license to carry a concealed firearm violates the Fourteenth Amendment. It prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the majority opinion and said the following:

“The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not “a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees. The exercise of other constitutional rights does not require individuals to demonstrate to government officers some special need. The Second Amendment right to carry arms in public for self- defense is no different. New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms in public.” ~Justice Thomas, United States Supreme Court

With that, the Supreme Court reversed the lower federal court’s holding.

The Court’s split was 6-3 with the court’s conservatives in the majority and liberals in dissent. Justice Alito filed a concurring opinion. Justice Kavanaugh filed a concurring opinion, in which Chief Justice Roberts joined. Justice Barrett filed a concurring opinion. Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Sotomayor and Justice Kagan joined.

In a dissent joined by his liberal colleagues, Justice Stephen Breyer focused on the toll from gun violence. He wrote that since the beginning of this year, there have already been 277 reported mass shootings — an average of more than one per day. He accused his colleagues in the majority of acting “without considering the potentially deadly consequences” of their decision. He said the ruling would “severely” burden states’ efforts to pass laws “that limit, in various ways, who may purchase, carry, or use firearms of different kinds.”

Several other conservative justices who joined Thomas’ majority opinion also wrote separately to add their views.

Justice Samuel Alito criticized Breyer’s dissent, questioning the relevance of his discussion of mass shootings and other gun death statistics. Alito wrote that the court had decided “nothing about who may lawfully possess a firearm or the requirements that must be met to buy a gun” and nothing “about the kinds of weapons that people may possess.”

“Today, unfortunately, many Americans have good reason to fear they will be victimized if they are unable to protect themselves.” The Second Amendment, he said, “guarantees their right to do so.”

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, noted the limits of the decision. States can still require people to get a license to carry a gun, Kavanaugh wrote, and condition that license on “fingerprinting, a background check, a mental health records check, and training in firearms handling and in laws regarding the use of force, among other possible requirements.”

Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with Firearm Offenses or any other crimes. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.